The controversy surrounding Yasuke, which was ignited by Assassin’s Creed Shadows, has led to renewed discussion about how Yasuke is portrayed in the works of Thomas Lockley, particularly in “Nobunaga and Yasuke” and “African Samurai“.
However, there hasn’t been as much discussion about Lockley’s 2016 paper, “The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African Retainer (which I’ll refer to as ‘Lockley’s Paper’ from here on),” because it’s only available at Nihon University’s Faculty of Law Library now.
It seems that this paper was once accessible online.
ウェッブさんはFBマーシャルアートコミュニティの一員として12月にロックリー氏の桜文論叢の論文(弥助をretainer=家臣としてる)を紹介。
https://x.com/yellobird9/status/1838849321514537258
ウェッブさんは後に弥助をサムライとして発表しているが、少なくとも2015年9月までは彼は弥助を家臣としていた。
Translation:
Mr. Webb, as a member of the FB Martial Arts Community, introduced Prof. Lockley’s paper from Omon Ronso in December, which referred to Yasuke as a retainer. Although he later presented Yasuke as a samurai, at least until September 2015, he considered Yasuke to be a retainer.
Currently, the National Diet Library of Japan is in the process of digitizing “Omon Ronso”, the journal in which Lockley’s paper appears (a collection of academic papers from Nihon University’s Faculty of Law), and it will remain unavailable for viewing until the end of November.
However, I was fortunate enough to have access to Nihon University’s Faculty of Law Library, so I was able to get my hands on a copy of the paper. As far as I know, I might be the only person who has examined and written about this Lockley paper so far.
Yesterday, I posted an article in Japanese on X, where I explained the parts of Lockley’s paper that seemed questionable. This blog post is the English version of that analysis.
It appears that Lockley may have referenced statements in his paper that we cannot find in the sources he cites.
- Abstract of Lockley’s Paper: Speculative Writing
- Doubts About Lockley’s Paper: Citing Statements Not Found in the Sources
- 1. “Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean Slaves in Japan Owned Possessions, Even Slaves of Their Own, and Were Sometimes Adopted into the Owners’ Family or Married to a Family Member”
- 2. “Black People in Yasuke’s Time Owned Japanese Slaves and Had Mistresses”
- 3. “Matsudaira Ietada, in the Ietada Diary, Wrote That He Was Envious of Yasuke’s Treatment”
- Conclusion: Lockley May Have Cited Statements That Cannot Be Found in the Sources
Abstract of Lockley’s Paper: Speculative Writing
Let’s start by looking at the abstract from Lockley’s paper. It gives a good sense of what the paper is about.
This paper will investigate the life of one of the most interesting but elusive figures in Japanese history, the black warrior, named Yasuke in Japanese sources, who fought beside the great warlord Oda Nobunaga at his final stand. Although he often appears in televised dramas about Nobunaga. and as the main character in a children’s novel, Kurosuke, in 1968, little or no academic research has so far been conducted on his life. European and Japanese writings both provide some testimony as to the course of his life in Japan, from 1579 until the fateful day at the Honno Temple in 1582 when Nobunaga was betrayed by Akechi Mitsuhide and died by seppuku. Furthermore, the movements and lives of the two men Yasuke served, the Italian Jesuit Alessandro Valignano and Nobunaga, are well documented and there is plenty of research into the conditions of life for a man like Yasuke at this time. This article will attempt for the first time to reconstruct his life more fully by triangulating these sources to tell his story, and go further. speculating as to his life before he enters and after he departs the historic record.
Thomas Lockley, The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African Retainer, Omon Ronso Vol.91, 2016, p.89
The last part of the abstract was particularly surprising to me. Ultimately, this paper follows what seems to be Lockley’s typical approach—SPECULATION.
After reading the entire paper, my impression was, “Is this even an academic paper?” There are so many parts that feel more like Lockley’s personal speculations or aspirations rather than objective analysis. In fact, it feels more like an essay than a scholarly work.
One issue that stood out is the lack of page numbers for the citations, making it difficult to trace exactly what part of his sources he’s referring to. But at the very least, Lockley seems to believe this work qualifies as academic paper.
その約1年後、自分の楽しみのために弥助を題材にした小説を書き始めました。仕事や家族など、日々の生活を優先したため一度は中断しましたが、2015年に再び筆を執った時は、真実を追求するため学術的な方向へシフトすることにしました。取り組む前は非常に短いものになると思っていましたが、知れば知るほど長くなり、論文として発表はしたものの、同時に本を書くに値する深いテーマであると気付きました。やがて、日本語版の書籍「信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍」（2017年 太田出版）が出版の運びとなりました。
英国ニュースダイジェスト (The British News Digest), 21 November 2019. https://www.news-digest.co.uk/news/features/19553-yasuke-the-true-story-of-the-legendary-african-samurai.html
Translation:
About a year later, I started writing a novel about Yasuke for fun. Due to work, family, and other daily priorities, I stopped for a while, but when I picked up the pen again in 2015, I shifted to a more academic direction in pursuit of truth. What I initially thought would be a short project grew longer the more I learned, and while publishing it as a paper, I realized that Yasuke was a subject deserving of a book. This eventually led to the publication of “Nobunaga and Yasuke: The Black Samurai Who Survived Honnoji” (2017, Ohta Publishing).
In his own book, Lockley suggests that this paper was responsible for spreading the image of “YASUKE” around the world.
弥助に関する最初の論文をインターネット上に投稿したことをきっかけに、私は弥助に魅了された大勢の人々と交流する機会に恵まれた。世界のいたるところで、実に多彩な人々——映画製作チームのメンバー、ブラジル系アメリカ人の漫画家、イギリスやフランスの作家、学者など——が弥助の人生に深い感銘を受けたり、それに触発されて創作活動をしたりしているのだ。
Thomas Lockley, Nobunaga and Yasuke: The Black Samurai Who Survived Honnoji, Ohta Publishing, 2017, p.98
Translation:
When I posted my first paper on Yasuke online, it opened up opportunities for me to connect with many people who were fascinated by him. All over the world, a diverse group of people —— members of film production teams, Brazilian-American manga artists, writers from the UK and France, scholars, and more —— have been deeply impressed by Yasuke’s life, and have even been inspired to create works based on it.
As the title of this blog post suggests, one of the most surprising claims in Lockley’s paper is that “Black people owned Japanese slaves”, a statement that may be difficult for Japanese people to believe.
While there are many questionable parts of the paper, I’ll focus here on the sections where Lockley quoted statements that I couldn’t find in the sources he cites.
Before, in the English version of Wikipedia, a user who claimed to be Thomas Lockley (under the username Tottoritom) cited Midori Fujita’s book, claiming that “Black people were not in fact discriminated against in Japan at this time, in fact they were even admired, for the Buddha was often portrayed in black in Japanese temples.”
However, actually Fujita’s book contains no such claim. This kind of approach seems to be reflected in Lockley’s paper as well.
Doubts About Lockley’s Paper: Citing Statements Not Found in the Sources
Here are three statements from Lockley’s paper that I could not find in the cited sources, based on my review:
- “Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean slaves in Japan owned possessions, even slaves of their own, and were sometimes adopted into the owners’ family or married to a family member”
- “Black people in Yasuke’s time owned Japanese slaves and had mistresses”
- “Matsudaira Ietada, in the ‘Ietada Diary’, wrote that he was envious of Yasuke’s treatment”
Statements 1 and 2 are mentioned consecutively in the same paragraph. Here’s the passage (the numbers in parentheses are mine):
In relation to Yasuke’s probable initial status as a slave or bonded worker, Japan at this time was a slave importing and exporting society. There are records that indicate the presence of Japanese slave girls in Portugal as early as 1555,Ixvii and slaves were regularly brought back to Japan from pirate raids in China, Korea and further afield. (1) However, Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean slaves in Japan owned possessions, even slaves of their own, and were sometimes adopted into the owners’ family or married to a family member.Ixviii (2) Black people in Japan during Yasuke’s time are explicitly mentioned as owning Japanese slaves and having mistresses, and it is highly likely that, as a favored retainer of a major warlord, Yasuke was himself given attendants and slaves.Ixix
Thomas Lockley, The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African Retainer, Omon Ronso vol91, 2016, p.104
- Ixvii: Thomas Nelson, “Slavery in Medieval Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica (2004) 59 (4) : 463-492
- Ixviii: Nelson, “Slavery in Medieval Japan.”
- lxix: Amy Stanley, Selling Women: Prostitution, markets, and the household in early modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012).
Statement 3 appears in the following paragraph, which contains much of Lockley’s speculations and aspirations.
While the Oda forces were travelling back to Azuchi, (3) Matsudaira Ietada made his second diary entry concerning Yasuke. He wrote of his surprise at Yasuke’s new high-status, commenting once again on his size and color. Matsudaira even speculated, somewhat ironically perhaps, that Yasuke’s stipend might even be equal to his own, which if correct would have made him a man of considerable wealth.cvii This indicates that Yasuke was probably handsomely mounted, clothed, attired, and armed as well as being placed in a position of favor near his lord. In this era it was customary for even important lords to have only two or three personal attendants,cviii so Yasuke’s position at his side is highly significant.
Thomas Lockley, The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer, Omon Ronso vol.91, 2016, p.112
- cvii: Matsudaira, 家忠日記第 2 巻 (Ietada Diary vol.2).
- cviii: Crasset, Histoire de l’Église du Japon.
Now, let’s examine these statements one by one.
1. “Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean Slaves in Japan Owned Possessions, Even Slaves of Their Own, and Were Sometimes Adopted into the Owners’ Family or Married to a Family Member”
However, Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean slaves in Japan owned possessions, even slaves of their own, and were sometimes adopted into the owners’ family or married to a family member.
Thomas Lockley, The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer, Omon Ronso Vol.91, 2016, p.104
The cited source is “Nelson, Slavery in Medieval Japan.” This paper can be accessed after signing up on this website.
However, I couldn’t find any mention in Nelson’s paper that matches Lockley’s claim. Some partial connections exist, but they don’t fully support his statement.
Let’s break down Lockley’s claim into four parts:
- ① Black, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean slaves in Japan
→ I couldn’t find - ② (Slaves in Japan) owned possessions
→ found - ③ (Slaves in Japan) owned slaves of their own
→ I couldn’t find - ④ (Slaves in Japan) were sometimes adopted into the owners’ family or married to a family member.
→ found
The references to parts ② and ④ seem to come from this section, which appears to quote a Jesuit meeting record from 1598:
The Portuguese excuse their behavior by saying that they have legally purchased the Koreans or Japanese and so freed them from a worse form of slavery and guaranteed them a better one. In reality, this is untrue because the Japanese give better treatment to the people they own as slaves and indeed treat them as their own children. The common people sometimes adopt them as children or even allow them to marry their own daughters or relatives. The slaves also own in their own right all the property they have acquired for themselves and they may use it as they wish. [By contrast], the Portuguese treat them just like dogs.
Thomas Nelson, “Slavery in Medieval Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica 59, no. 4 (2004): 474-479, p.468.
This passage describes how the Japanese treated their own slaves, but it doesn’t mention foreign slaves.
Additionally, there are only three mentions of Black people in this Nelson’s paper, and they all refer to the fate of Japanese slaves being taken abroad:
- Valignano’s fictional description of Japanese slaves being taken by Portuguese:
“Not only must they suffer bitter servitude among Black barbarians, but also be filled with false creeds.” - A quote about Japanese slaves being mistreated during transport by Portuguese:
“As soon as their foremen, often the kafirs and Blacks of the Portuguese, fall ill, the slaves receive succor from no one.” - A complaint by Chinese in Macau about the increasing number of Japanese slaves:
“You are Westerners, so of what use are Japanese to you when you [can] use Blacks?”
Furthermore, I found a passage that directly contradicts Lockley’s claim that slaves could own other slaves:
As medieval Japan did not have prisons, it was a common practice, especially in the eastern part of the country, to put criminals in the custody of a vassal or even in the charge of a hyakusho or unfree shojū. Presumably, hyakusho could force these uninvited guests to work for them, but prisoners do not appear to have become their property, and responsibility for looking after them could be a heavy burden.
Thomas Nelson, “Slavery in Medieval Japan,” Monumenta Nipponica 59, no. 4 (2004): 474-479, p.478.
Here, shojū refers to non-free people, classified as slaves in Nelson’s paper. While this passage mentions that slaves might manage others, it also clarifies that these prisoners didn’t appear to have become their property.
In summary, Nelson’s paper only supports the idea that “Japanese slaves could own property and be adopted into or marry into their master’s family“.
I couldn’t find any statement supporting Lockley’s claim that “Black, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean slaves owned other slaves in Japan“.
2. “Black People in Yasuke’s Time Owned Japanese Slaves and Had Mistresses”
Black people in Japan during Yasuke’s time are explicitly mentioned as owning Japanese slaves and having mistresses, and it is highly likely that, as a favored retainer of a major warlord, Yasuke was himself given attendants and slaves.
Thomas Lockley, The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer, Omon Ronso Vol.91, 2016, p.112
The cited source here is Amy Stanley’s “Selling Women: Prostitution, Markets, and the Household in Early Modern Japan (2012).” However, this book mainly discusses prostitution in Edo-period Japan, not Yasuke’s era, which was earlier.
The Chapter 3 in this book talks about prostitution involving foreigners in Dejima (artificial island in Nagasaki used for trading with foreigners). If there were mentions of Black people, they would likely be found here. However, this chapter focuses on the early Edo period, starting in the early 17th century—different from the time Yasuke appears in historical records (1581-1582).
In fact, by Yasuke’s time, the ban on Portuguse missionaries (who brought him to Japan) had already been issued, and Dejima had become a settlement for Dutch and Chinese. Thus, Stanley’s book doesn’t seem to be a relevant source for claims about Black people in Yasuke’s time.
Stanley does mention Dutch merchants’ relationships with Japanese prostitutes. However, the only mentions of Black people or Africans are the following:
Dejima’s residents (hereafter referred to as Dutchmen, although the group also included other Europeans employed by the Dutch East India Company, as well as Indonesian and African slaves and servants) were seldom permitted to leave their miserable outpost and not allowed to associate with the Japanese population.
Amy Stanley, Selling Women: Prostitution, markets, and the household in early modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), p.77.
This passage doesn’t suggest that “Black people owned Japanese slaves” or that “Black people had mistresses.” So why did Lockley make that claim?
It seems Lockley might have arrived at this interpretation based on the following logic:
- Dejima residents, including Black people, were referred to as “Dutchmen”
- Dutchmen (Dutch and Chinese merchants) had relationships with prostitutes
- Therefore, Black people must have had relationships with prostitutes (!?)
You might think this is incomprehensible, and so do I. But after reading Chapter 3, I couldn’t find any logic or basis for Lockley’s interpretation.
The term “Dutch” is used 22 times in Chapter 3, mostly referring to Dutch merchants. The only two instances where “Dutchman/Dutchmen” might refer to residents of Dejima as a whole are the following:
In 1757, the yūjo Wakaura returned to her father’s house to give birth, after failing to inform the brothel keeper that she was pregnant. Instead, when she asked for time off, she pleaded illness and exhaustion. It seems that she had been concealing her condition because the baby’s father, a Dutch trader, wanted to bring his child home to Holland. Like other desperate yūjo, Wakaura turned to her parents, who insisted that they would not relinquish their granddaughter unless they received a direct order from the magistrate. The brothel keeper, utterly perplexed by the Dutchman’s demands and Wakaura’s parents’ obstinacy, appealed to the magistrate for instructions on how to proceed. Displaying little knowledge of the shogunate’s precedents, which had forbidden half-Japanese children from leaving the country, the magistrate declared that the consent of both parents would be necessary to remove the child from Japan, and the baby stayed with her grandparents.79 Since they had tried to prevent the Dutchman from discovering his child’s existence, their actions would be impossible to explain if they were only concerned for the financial support that he might provide for their daughter and her child.
Amy Stanley, Selling Women: Prostitution, markets, and the household in early modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), pp.95-96.
Here, “Dutchman” clearly refers to the Dutch merchant, not a Black person.
Therefore, Lockley’s claim that “Black people in Yasuke’s time owned Japanese slaves and had mistresses” couldn’t be found in Chapter 3 of this book, based on my reading.
There might still be references to Black people elsewhere in the book, but since it focuses on prostitution in the Edo period, it’s unlikely to cover Yasuke’s time.
This book is 400 pages long, and I haven’t finished it yet, so I’ll update this post if I find any relevant mentions of Black people.
3. “Matsudaira Ietada, in the Ietada Diary, Wrote That He Was Envious of Yasuke’s Treatment”
Matsudaira Ietada made his second diary entry concerning Yasuke. He wrote of his surprise at Yasuke’s new high-status, commenting once again on his size and color. Matsudaira even speculated, somewhat ironically perhaps, that Yasuke’s stipend might even be equal to his own, which if correct would have made him a man of considerable wealth.
Thomas Lockley, The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer, Omon Ronso vol.91, 2016, p.112
?
As far as I know, there is no such entry in the “Ietada Diary”. Lockley’s description here is a complete mystery for us.
He mentions a “second diary entry,” but to my knowledge, Yasuke is only mentioned once in the “Ietada Diary”. Perhaps Lockley confused it with the “信長公記 (Shinchōkōki)”? I hope that’s not the case.
Conclusion: Lockley May Have Cited Statements That Cannot Be Found in the Sources
As we’ve seen, in “The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African Retainer (2016)”, Lockley seems to have cited statements that cannot be found in the sources he references:
- “Black, Chinese, Japanese and Korean Slaves in Japan Owned Possessions, Even Slaves of Their Own, and Were Sometimes Adopted into the Owners’ Family or Married to a Family Member”
- “Black people in Yasuke’s time owned Japanese slaves and had mistresses”
- “Matsudaira Ietada, in the Ietada Diary, wrote that he was envious of Yasuke’s treatment”
Based on my reading, none of these claims could be verified in the cited sources. Furthermore, Lockley doesn’t provide page numbers for his citations, making it difficult to track down the exact references.
I wonder whether Nihon University’s Faculty of Law actually peer-reviewed this paper. It’s hard to understand how this paper passed the peer-review process since much of its content are his speculations and aspirations.
In Japan, we are aware of the variable reliability of Japanese university bulletin papers (紀要論文), but people from other countries may not know this. Foreign readers might assume that anything published in a “peer-reviewed paper” is reliable.
Lockley himself has said that his paper had an international impact. If Nihon University’s Faculty of Law had rejected this paper, the current Assassin’s Creed controversy might not have arisen.
In fairness, I should mention that I randomly checked a few other papers in “Omon Ronso” and found that they generally had citation pages and followed the structure of academic papers.
Also, I’d like to express my gratitude to the staff at Nihon University’s Faculty of Law Library, who were extremely courteous during my visit, even though I was an outsider. Thank you very much.
Lockley’s paper in “Omon Ronso” is still be undergoing digitization by the National Diet Library, and it won’t be available until the end of November. Once it’s accessible, I would like everyone to read it.
It’s been four months since the Assassin’s Creed: Shadows and Yasuke controversy started, and the issue still hasn’t cooled down.
Some Japanese historians are even defending Lockley, despite the risks to their reputations.
It’s about time for Lockley, to come forward and explain the doubts surrounding your claims.
Thank you for reading to the end. I wanted to update this blog weekly, but spent so much time debating Yasuke with a Japanese historian on X that I didn’t have time to write new articles.
In Part 2, I’ll look at other questionable claims in Lockley’s work on this paper.
